states to tax hybrids bevs

[cgaydos]

While pedestrians don't damage the road/sidewalk, there is a real cost to building sidewalks (and bike lanes).

Building a sidewalk and then maintaining it costs money and should be billed to pedestrians. It would be shocking how much this would cost in some areas (low density).

The same is true for light cars. They require just as much road spaces as heavier cars so require that just as many lanes and miles of highway be built and maintained. Even though they don't wear the road down, there is still a large cost that is not weight dependent.

There is truth there. HOWEVER, consider bike lanes that take commuter traffic off of the freeway. The cost of those lanes is more than offset (*much* more) by the reduced wear-and-tear on the main roads, plus the benefits of lower congestion. It is easy to justify paying for those bike lanes out of freeway funds such as the gas tax.

Perhaps - but they have to be pretty heavily used lanes. Suppose they cost 1/2 a car lane - they would need to be as packed as the car lane assuming they travel at 1/2 the speed. Anywhere in the US where that is true in rush hour - maybe Portland. Certainly not here. And you would certainly have to average in the rainy day traffic in that bike lane.

Around here, they offset less than 1% of rush hour traffic. Significantly less than 1%. So the subsidy for the bike riders is absolutely enormous. Taxing EVs is fair but so is taxing bicyclists and pedestrians. Since taxation is never close to 100% fair, we probably should just call the gas tax a pollution tax and leave it at that.

There are two problems with that analysis.

First, bike lanes don't cost even a small fraction of half of a car lane - UNLESS they are built adjacent to a road and to the same standards as the road. A separate bike lane requires much less effort and materials because it will be designed to support bikes, not 70k pound semi-trailers. In addition, highways require extensive features for safety, from impact-tolerant guard rails to break-away light poles and road signs to large areas of right-of-way as buffer at the side of roads (or crash-tolerant walls). And that's just talking initial construction costs. In terms of maintenance over time costs are even more strongly weighted towards the roads.

Second, when we talk bike lanes and mass transit the benefit is not measured merely by number of cars removed from the road but by number of cars removed from the road at peak hours. Thus, you should compare the cost of expanding the peak road capacity with the cost of creating alternative means of transport (mass transit, car pools, biking) or non-transport (in terms of approaches like telecommuting). When evaluating the costs of expanding peak road capacity also consider the associated costs of additional safety work: policing, traffic accident response. Also consider the additional costs to adjacent roads of the additional traffic.

I, too, used to commute in a city during peak hours and would sit in my car in slow traffic and get steamed by that nearly empty car pool lane. I understand the thinking that leads to "if we just added a general use lane then traffic would flow freely". But when doing cost-benefit analysis it's often more beneficial to spend the money on alternative transportation means.

 

[Levenkay]

By switching from my last ICE to a LEAF, I save ~$240/yr from paying no fuel excise tax. That's nice, but as more and more EVs replace ICEVs, I'd still like roads and bridges maintained.

The three options I've seen so far are: a flat yearly fee, a fee based on milage, a fee based on kWhs from the wall or EVSE.

I think a yearly fee would be easiest to administer.

I agree that it's reasonable for EVs to support road maintenance, but I favor trying to get as close to fee-for-use as possible, and that means a mileage based fee. More particularly, a mileage-within-taxing-jurisdiction-based one. Here in the metropolitan areas of Oregon, fume-spewing automobiles must jump through an environmental hoop when renewing their vehicle licenses. The drill is, you take your renewal form to a Department of Environmental Quality inspection station, where they tap into the vehicle's computer and ask it if it's been a good little car. Upon the car's assurance that all its emissions controls are in spec (they used to actually measure emissions, but that was more expensive), you pay an extra fee and they hand you your renewal stickers. Well, the process could be extended to all vehicles (an EV being allowed to always answer "I do not pollute", of course), and expanded to include the question: "how far have you been driven within the taxing jurisdiction programmed into the car at the time of its registration?". Then take the car's answer to that question, multiply by X $/mile, and add that to the fee. This wouldn't be fair for owners who exclusively drive on their own privately maintained road system, but I think it comes pretty close to perfect for everyone else. Vehicles without the necessary GPS-based algorithm get taxed on the somewhat harsher assumption that the entire odometer increase since the previous taxing cycle reflects miles driven entirely within the taxing jurisdiction, as an incentive to obtain or fix the road-use accounting feature.

Yes, this requires actual design effort on the part of automakers. That is, after all, their job, and they should already be about it.

 

[planet4ever]

The three options I've seen so far are: a flat yearly fee, a fee based on milage, a fee based on kWhs from the wall or EVSE. I think a yearly fee would be easiest to administer.

The drill is, you take your renewal form to a Department of Environmental Quality inspection station, where they tap into the vehicle's computer and ask it if it's been a good little car. Upon the car's assurance that all its emissions controls are in spec (they used to actually measure emissions, but that was more expensive), you pay an extra fee and they hand you your renewal stickers. Well, the process could be extended to all vehicles (an EV being allowed to always answer "I do not pollute", of course), and expanded to include the question: "how far have you been driven within the taxing jurisdiction programmed into the car at the time of its registration?".

Too complicated to get set up, and not fair. Why should you pay nothing for driving outside your tax jurisdiction? From the vehicle's perspective, the damage it does to the roads and the demand it puts on expanding them depends on total miles driven, perhaps adjusted for weight. If there is a major imbalance between where registered and where driven, as there might be in metropolitan areas that cross states, let the taxing jurisdictions settle that by a funds transfer based on traffic studies.

Every state should require an annual safety/pollution inspection for all vehicles, and it would be trivial to implement a tax based on the odometer reading at that inspection. The state DMV would only have to maintain a minimal database of VIN, last inspection date, and odometer reading at last inspection. The tax can be paid directly as part of the inspection fee, with the money forwarded to the state just like a sales tax.

Ray

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

Fees, taxes, and how it gets implemented, will all vary by state. I don't see that changing, the states will always vary. I don't think gas taxes should be replaced, but remain, even increase, they're already only a fraction of what's paid in some other countries.

Here's an interesting idea from someone at the Naval Academy: http://aprs.org/EV-and-gas-taxes.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It adds the concept of parity. In a nutshell, EVs don't pay for road maintenance, but but do provide a benefit to the environment, and ICEVs do pay for roads, but haven't been paying for the damage to the environment that they use. So, charge all cars a milage based fee, and continue gas taxes, using the extra money from ICEVs to fund environmental projects, renewable energy, EV infrastructure, etc.

Is there a list somewhere of how it stands now? AFAIK, WA, CO, & VA have a flat fee. All $100? Still a good deal compared to gas taxes. MD is offering a tax credit, up to $1000, until 6/14. Are there more?

 

[cgaydos]

Is there a list somewhere of how it stands now? AFAIK, WA, CO, & VA have a flat fee. All $100? Still a good deal compared to gas taxes. MD is offering a tax credit, up to $1000, until 6/14. Are there more?

CO is $50/year, of which $20 is supposed to go to EV charging infrastructure. CO offers a tax credit on purchase or lease. It's "up to $6k", which is a bit over $5100 for a LEAF purchase and in the neighborhood of $1k for lease (the actual amount of the credit varies greatly on leases).